I'll tell you what I think, and since I'm no expert and don't really know you can take it for what it's worth. I think that when a figure is very imporant, and there are factions of believers who hold to different foundational stories about that important person, it makes sense that in the process of recording precious historical details one would want to preserve all accounts. It makes sense politically (why alienate anyone when you're trying to draw people together?) and it makes sense strictly from a preservationalist point of view. We have two different Genesis accounts. There is more than one Deluge account synthesized into the story of Noah's flood. If all the inconsistencies in the Bible were ironed out we wouldn't have the diversity of points of view, and that would result in a paucity of information worse than what we now have.
Gospel inconsistencies
- Thread starter pattimax
- Start date
Just because the Holy Spirit germinated Mary's seed, doesn't mean Joseph's contribution was not included. It just didn't happen in the usual way. That is the miracle. Like Moses parting the Red Sea...just because it's been proven that a ten knot wind will literally seperate the waters of the Red Sea, doesn't make it any less a miracle. Afterall, how did Moses control the wind?...
As it's never mentioned by tradition among their lists of orthodox, heterodox or heresiarch documents, I don't think there was a 'Gospel of Thomas' around for at least three centuries. And Thomas is supposed to have gone to India, so if he left something behind, it would have been recorded.
Some have posited that there might be a link between Q and the GoT, but I think that's stretching it a bit. I think the argument was on the basis that they are both 'sayings' documents, but again, there's no evidence for Q or T to support the claims.
Thomas can't be placed earlier than the 4th century, and though it would appear a sayings document might well have been the source, it's gone through such a reworking in pseudo-gnostic terms that it can't be considered canonical, or even authentic – the 'hero' of the work is Thomas, not Jesus. It's only 'useful' as an exemplar of what people did to texts in those days.
Some scholars insist that GoT is not 'gnostic' – there are major discrepancies between common gnostic doctrine, and Thomas' doctrine.
But Thomas does employ a very common gnostic literary device, which is to present the author as enlightened, in possession of a 'secret wisdom', or in some other way 'special', yet Thomas was never one of Jesus' inner circle.
It was accepted gnostic practice to take texts and alter them according to one's own viewpoint (hence the wide diversity among gnostic texts). Part of this altering was to present the current author as more enlightened than his peers or contemporaries, it was a crowded and competitive marketplace!
So GoT is historically interesting, and historically valuable, but not canonical.
Thomas
The 'factions' occurred later, I think. Originally there were not so much factions as different audiences ... like the Epistles, which address different issues within different churches ... but an overwhelming factor is that across the empire there was a common message being proclaimed, common to the gospels and the epistles: Miraculous birth, teaching, arrest and execution, resurrection...
I'm not sure I'd agree the 'foundational' aspects differ? Two birthline narratives, but they are in themselves immaterial, the 'foundational' aspect is the Incarnation ... take the birthlines away, and nothing is fundamentally altered.
Or rather the same account from two viewpoints.
And the Hebrew account is philosophically and metaphysically 'transcendant' compared to the Babylonian and other accounts ... that's the bit that matters. Those other accounts won't hold water today (oh dear, was that a pun?).
Old Mafia rule of thumb: One witness, you're in trouble. Two witnesses, you got a way out, three or more witnesses, you're home free.
So why focus on the inconsistencies? Why not focus on the consistencies, that points to what it's all about ... that's where the real action is, all the rest is a sideshow and a diversion.
C.S. Lewis regarded Christianity a myth, like other myths ... but his friends said, "What if it's not?" And the more sophisticated our scientific techniques become, the more they seem to point to the fact that this didn't develop the way myths develop ...
... just stirrin' the pot!
Thomas
pattimax
Somewhat returning
I think we find the inconsistencies by focusing on the consistencies...as with your mafia analogy...when we have more than one account of anything the tend to differ.
The other level of inconsistencies is our difference with those churches that preach the loving and forgiving G-d and Jesus v. those churches that preach the G-d to be feared with hell and damnation...they all use the same book.
pattimax
Somewhat returning
I told you I was just learning...
Can you briefly go into all of the councils?
Can you briefly go into all of the councils?
Hi Pattimax –
It has been argued that after the destruction of Jerusalem (70), a new home for Jewish Law was founded in Jabneh (Jamnia). The date, and even the reality of a council, is disputed, but in the following era a number of things occurred, one was the rejection of the Koine Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures, such as the non-Hebrew Christians used, and the other was a curse against the Christians, along with various other sects, Essenes, gnostics, etc., who were forbidden to enter the synagogues.
Christian practice at that time saw no issue with Christians observing Jewish laws and customs, as the Christian sabbath and the Rite of the Eucharist was celebrated in homes, not in synagogues – so the expulsion would have been very painful for many of the Christianised Jews.
This increasing tension is reflected in Matthew, and indeed the question of anti-semitism in Christian texts, even John's Gospel, is still discussed.
Thomas
It has been argued that after the destruction of Jerusalem (70), a new home for Jewish Law was founded in Jabneh (Jamnia). The date, and even the reality of a council, is disputed, but in the following era a number of things occurred, one was the rejection of the Koine Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures, such as the non-Hebrew Christians used, and the other was a curse against the Christians, along with various other sects, Essenes, gnostics, etc., who were forbidden to enter the synagogues.
Christian practice at that time saw no issue with Christians observing Jewish laws and customs, as the Christian sabbath and the Rite of the Eucharist was celebrated in homes, not in synagogues – so the expulsion would have been very painful for many of the Christianised Jews.
This increasing tension is reflected in Matthew, and indeed the question of anti-semitism in Christian texts, even John's Gospel, is still discussed.
Thomas
But that's my point. Because a mafia lawyer can convince the jury that the witnesses are unreliable, that does not mean the crime was never committed.
Taken with the fact there is enough biblical scholarship out there to offer sufficient explanation for the discrepancies, the argument is that those who make a big deal of the discrepancies rarely bother to look for the answers – so they're not looking for a reason to believe, they're looking for a reason not to believe ...
... Put bluntly, the inconsistencies are just the thing that mafia lawyer, called the ego, brings into play to sidestep the real issue.
Ditto.
Another excuse is, "Look, s/he's a Christian, and s/he's not perfect!"
Thomas
Is that addressed to me ... and you mean the Church Councils?
Quite happy to, but on another thread, I think, as they didn't discuss the question of Gospel inconsistency ... they followed the rule that where there is apparent contradiction, then seek in the text and you will find the answer ...
Thomas
Hi Wil –
Oh, this brings up a whole host of 'inconsistencies'!
1: Why betrayal? The Sanhedrin had no need of a 'grass' to level an accusation against Jesus (Judas made no accusation), nor would they need an insider to identify Him ... the only reason I can think of was that Judas would tip the authorities off when Jesus was not among a throng of followers.
2: Why did Judas betray Him? What was he hoping to achieve. I think the concensus stands that Judas wanted to force Jesus' hand, as it were, and make Him take the initiative ... but it's still a mystery.
3: Thirty pieces of silver – that was the fixed rate value of a slave's life. Hardly the bounty worthy of one of the 'ten most wanted'.
4: The final accusation levelled against Jesus was 'Are you the Son of God?' – and it was explicitly understood that the phrase was not asked in the context of 'are you a prophet?' (which was not a crime, and that address was used of the prophets, without any problem as such) but precisely to ask was Jesus proclaiming His own Divinity ... to which He answered 'Yes', and for this blasphemy He was condemned.
5: The crime related to Pilate was not one of blasphemy, a claim to Divinity – which the Romans would have ignored, the Jews having some very strange and amusing notions about their God – but that Jesus claimed Kingship of the Jews, which was a political, not a religious, title, and one Rome could not ignore, as this meant Jesus was challenging Rome's authority. Pilate rejected it, on the grounds that Jesus and his followers hardly comprised an army in revolt ... but the Sanhedrin pushed him into a corner.
6: Here's a biggie – why did the Sanhedrin send Jesus before Pilate? They didn't need Rome's permission to execute their law. They were ready to stone the woman taken in adultery, they were ready to stone Jesus before (but He 'slipped away'), and they stoned Stephen later ... they did not need Rome's permission to kill each other ... Rome probably thought it was a very good idea.
7: Because there is a transcendental and spuernatural reading of the events – Jesus Christ was rejected by everyone – one of His disciples valued his life no more than a slave's; the Sanherdrin didn't want to be the ones who killed him, nor did the Romans ... He was God in their midst, and nobody wanted to know – that's the message of man in Scripture – "Dear God, will you please go away, you're an embarrasment."
+++
Judas? Well, the two accounts each reference Hebrew Scriptures regarding the fate of a traitor:
Matthew echoes 2 Samuel 17:23, the only account of a suicide in the Old Testament. Ahithophel was a counsellor to King David, but betrayed his king to support the rebellion of Absalom, David's son. In the biblical account, once unmasked, Ahithophel went home, 'put his house in order', and hanged himself.
Luke, in Acts, is more philosophical, as his Gentile audience would not get the allusion to a story of David, and he echoes the book of Wisdom, speaking of the apparent triumphs of injustice in the world:
"And they (the unjust) shall fall after this without honour, and be a reproach among the dead for ever: for he shall burst them puffed up and speechless, and shall shake them from the foundations, and they shall be utterly laid waste: they shall be in sorrow, and their memory shall perish." (Wisdom 4:19 – my emphasis)
The pouring out of the entrails is a common device in the death of the evildoer in pagan literature, so that no vestige of honour might be awarded his death.
The Potter's Field purchased with the money (whether by the Sanhedrin, who would have given it to him, or made it over to his name, not wanting to be associated with 'blood money' or Judas, is something of a technicality, really) became known as 'Bloody Acre' or Hakeldama in Aramaic, having already acquired (apparently) a reputation in Jerusalem as a place of ill-omen.
Thomas
Oh, this brings up a whole host of 'inconsistencies'!
1: Why betrayal? The Sanhedrin had no need of a 'grass' to level an accusation against Jesus (Judas made no accusation), nor would they need an insider to identify Him ... the only reason I can think of was that Judas would tip the authorities off when Jesus was not among a throng of followers.
2: Why did Judas betray Him? What was he hoping to achieve. I think the concensus stands that Judas wanted to force Jesus' hand, as it were, and make Him take the initiative ... but it's still a mystery.
3: Thirty pieces of silver – that was the fixed rate value of a slave's life. Hardly the bounty worthy of one of the 'ten most wanted'.
4: The final accusation levelled against Jesus was 'Are you the Son of God?' – and it was explicitly understood that the phrase was not asked in the context of 'are you a prophet?' (which was not a crime, and that address was used of the prophets, without any problem as such) but precisely to ask was Jesus proclaiming His own Divinity ... to which He answered 'Yes', and for this blasphemy He was condemned.
5: The crime related to Pilate was not one of blasphemy, a claim to Divinity – which the Romans would have ignored, the Jews having some very strange and amusing notions about their God – but that Jesus claimed Kingship of the Jews, which was a political, not a religious, title, and one Rome could not ignore, as this meant Jesus was challenging Rome's authority. Pilate rejected it, on the grounds that Jesus and his followers hardly comprised an army in revolt ... but the Sanhedrin pushed him into a corner.
6: Here's a biggie – why did the Sanhedrin send Jesus before Pilate? They didn't need Rome's permission to execute their law. They were ready to stone the woman taken in adultery, they were ready to stone Jesus before (but He 'slipped away'), and they stoned Stephen later ... they did not need Rome's permission to kill each other ... Rome probably thought it was a very good idea.
7: Because there is a transcendental and spuernatural reading of the events – Jesus Christ was rejected by everyone – one of His disciples valued his life no more than a slave's; the Sanherdrin didn't want to be the ones who killed him, nor did the Romans ... He was God in their midst, and nobody wanted to know – that's the message of man in Scripture – "Dear God, will you please go away, you're an embarrasment."
+++
Judas? Well, the two accounts each reference Hebrew Scriptures regarding the fate of a traitor:
Matthew echoes 2 Samuel 17:23, the only account of a suicide in the Old Testament. Ahithophel was a counsellor to King David, but betrayed his king to support the rebellion of Absalom, David's son. In the biblical account, once unmasked, Ahithophel went home, 'put his house in order', and hanged himself.
Luke, in Acts, is more philosophical, as his Gentile audience would not get the allusion to a story of David, and he echoes the book of Wisdom, speaking of the apparent triumphs of injustice in the world:
"And they (the unjust) shall fall after this without honour, and be a reproach among the dead for ever: for he shall burst them puffed up and speechless, and shall shake them from the foundations, and they shall be utterly laid waste: they shall be in sorrow, and their memory shall perish." (Wisdom 4:19 – my emphasis)
The pouring out of the entrails is a common device in the death of the evildoer in pagan literature, so that no vestige of honour might be awarded his death.
The Potter's Field purchased with the money (whether by the Sanhedrin, who would have given it to him, or made it over to his name, not wanting to be associated with 'blood money' or Judas, is something of a technicality, really) became known as 'Bloody Acre' or Hakeldama in Aramaic, having already acquired (apparently) a reputation in Jerusalem as a place of ill-omen.
Thomas
pattimax
Somewhat returning
Sorry about that. Yes it was addressed to you and I will start another thread.
I've never tried to do this with quotes so I hope it turns out OK.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny C.
I think that when a figure is very imporant, and there are factions of believers...
The 'factions' occurred later, I think. Originally there were not so much factions as different audiences ... like the Epistles, which address different issues within different churches ... but an overwhelming factor is that across the empire there was a common message being proclaimed, common to the gospels and the epistles: Miraculous birth, teaching, arrest and execution, resurrection...
Yes, but the congregations were culturally diverse, and there were many "schools" dedicated to one or another revered teachers. There are many hints in Paul's writings which suggest conflicting and competing theological and dogmatic ideologies. It took several hundered years to straighten all that stuff out. Longer if you consider the rise of Protestantism. And we really don't have any sort of clear historical picture of the early evolution of the movement before the second century CE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny C.
who hold to different foundational stories about that important person,
I'm not sure I'd agree the 'foundational' aspects differ? Two birthline narratives, but they are in themselves immaterial, the 'foundational' aspect is the Incarnation ... take the birthlines away, and nothing is fundamentally altered.
Yes, but the different geneologies are there. And since, as you say, the difference is of no great import to the message, and Luke obviously agrees, the obvious conclusion is that Luke felt free to change the geneology to suit the OT themes he was drawing on to create his nativity account. That gives us a window into the writers method and process. If the difference in geneology is inconsequential, then it really is inconsequential. Which is to say that one can dispense with that portion of purported historicity in the Gospel account.
Does that make any sense? No. Every bit of the text is consequential. So, somewhere between the silliness and oversimplicity of the Mary explanation and outright rejection there has to be a middle ground explanation. That's what interests me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny C.
We have two different Genesis accounts...
Or rather the same account from two viewpoints.
Two distinct accounts. Two pieces of source material preserved in one story. What I'm saying is: why just choose one to preserve? Knowledge of this kind is very precious, so why not preserve all the bits?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny C.
There is more than one Deluge account synthesized into the story of Noah's flood.
And the Hebrew account is philosophically and metaphysically 'transcendant' compared to the Babylonian and other accounts ... that's the bit that matters. Those other accounts won't hold water today (oh dear, was that a pun?).
Same, same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny C.
If all the inconsistencies in the Bible were ironed out we wouldn't have the diversity of points of view, and that would result in a paucity of information worse than what we now have.
Old Mafia rule of thumb: One witness, you're in trouble. Two witnesses, you got a way out, three or more witnesses, you're home free.
So why focus on the inconsistencies? Why not focus on the consistencies, that points to what it's all about ... that's where the real action is, all the rest is a sideshow and a diversion.
C.S. Lewis regarded Christianity a myth, like other myths ... but his friends said, "What if it's not?" And the more sophisticated our scientific techniques become, the more they seem to point to the fact that this didn't develop the way myths develop ...
... just stirrin' the pot!
Thomas
Why focus on the inconsistencies? Because they're interesting. It's the lumpy, bumpy bits that stick out and catch our attention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny C.
I think that when a figure is very imporant, and there are factions of believers...
The 'factions' occurred later, I think. Originally there were not so much factions as different audiences ... like the Epistles, which address different issues within different churches ... but an overwhelming factor is that across the empire there was a common message being proclaimed, common to the gospels and the epistles: Miraculous birth, teaching, arrest and execution, resurrection...
Yes, but the congregations were culturally diverse, and there were many "schools" dedicated to one or another revered teachers. There are many hints in Paul's writings which suggest conflicting and competing theological and dogmatic ideologies. It took several hundered years to straighten all that stuff out. Longer if you consider the rise of Protestantism. And we really don't have any sort of clear historical picture of the early evolution of the movement before the second century CE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny C.
who hold to different foundational stories about that important person,
I'm not sure I'd agree the 'foundational' aspects differ? Two birthline narratives, but they are in themselves immaterial, the 'foundational' aspect is the Incarnation ... take the birthlines away, and nothing is fundamentally altered.
Yes, but the different geneologies are there. And since, as you say, the difference is of no great import to the message, and Luke obviously agrees, the obvious conclusion is that Luke felt free to change the geneology to suit the OT themes he was drawing on to create his nativity account. That gives us a window into the writers method and process. If the difference in geneology is inconsequential, then it really is inconsequential. Which is to say that one can dispense with that portion of purported historicity in the Gospel account.
Does that make any sense? No. Every bit of the text is consequential. So, somewhere between the silliness and oversimplicity of the Mary explanation and outright rejection there has to be a middle ground explanation. That's what interests me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny C.
We have two different Genesis accounts...
Or rather the same account from two viewpoints.
Two distinct accounts. Two pieces of source material preserved in one story. What I'm saying is: why just choose one to preserve? Knowledge of this kind is very precious, so why not preserve all the bits?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny C.
There is more than one Deluge account synthesized into the story of Noah's flood.
And the Hebrew account is philosophically and metaphysically 'transcendant' compared to the Babylonian and other accounts ... that's the bit that matters. Those other accounts won't hold water today (oh dear, was that a pun?).
Same, same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny C.
If all the inconsistencies in the Bible were ironed out we wouldn't have the diversity of points of view, and that would result in a paucity of information worse than what we now have.
Old Mafia rule of thumb: One witness, you're in trouble. Two witnesses, you got a way out, three or more witnesses, you're home free.
So why focus on the inconsistencies? Why not focus on the consistencies, that points to what it's all about ... that's where the real action is, all the rest is a sideshow and a diversion.
C.S. Lewis regarded Christianity a myth, like other myths ... but his friends said, "What if it's not?" And the more sophisticated our scientific techniques become, the more they seem to point to the fact that this didn't develop the way myths develop ...
... just stirrin' the pot!
Thomas
Why focus on the inconsistencies? Because they're interesting. It's the lumpy, bumpy bits that stick out and catch our attention.
Hi Sunny C
I would rather say inconsistencies are peripheral, because the issue of consistency or otherwise is in relation to the text. The paperchase I enjoy is not the inconsistencies, that's easy and obvious, it's the consistency of message, a message unique and, in a very real sense, a revelation ... where did that come from?
The fact that the inconsistencies niggle, but won't let you walk away, alludes to something that Quahom said elsewhere ... or put another way, when the Archangel Gabriel let me have a look in the Book of Life (he lost a bet with me on the outcome of the Oxford/Cambridge Boat Race, being an Oxford fan), I swear I saw your name there!
(That last comment, and those like "there's two sorts of people in the world, Catholics, and those who don't know it yet" used to really, really annoy me, apologies, but I couldn't help it!)
+++
BTW, you said: "Two distinct accounts. Two pieces of source material preserved in one story. What I'm saying is: why just choose one to preserve? Knowledge of this kind is very precious, so why not preserve all the bits?"
Well it is precious, until people begin to miss the point, becoming involved with the apparent inconsistency. Are you sure you've not answered your own question?
My view, the other (pagan) bits preserved, just illuminate the wisdom, profundity and inspiration that runs through Scripture.
I follow the advice of a Zen master who said words to the effect of, "Just do it ... and you will find the answers to the questions you didn't know you were asking ... "
Thomas
I would rather say inconsistencies are peripheral, because the issue of consistency or otherwise is in relation to the text. The paperchase I enjoy is not the inconsistencies, that's easy and obvious, it's the consistency of message, a message unique and, in a very real sense, a revelation ... where did that come from?
The fact that the inconsistencies niggle, but won't let you walk away, alludes to something that Quahom said elsewhere ... or put another way, when the Archangel Gabriel let me have a look in the Book of Life (he lost a bet with me on the outcome of the Oxford/Cambridge Boat Race, being an Oxford fan), I swear I saw your name there!
(That last comment, and those like "there's two sorts of people in the world, Catholics, and those who don't know it yet" used to really, really annoy me, apologies, but I couldn't help it!)
+++
BTW, you said: "Two distinct accounts. Two pieces of source material preserved in one story. What I'm saying is: why just choose one to preserve? Knowledge of this kind is very precious, so why not preserve all the bits?"
Well it is precious, until people begin to miss the point, becoming involved with the apparent inconsistency. Are you sure you've not answered your own question?
My view, the other (pagan) bits preserved, just illuminate the wisdom, profundity and inspiration that runs through Scripture.
I follow the advice of a Zen master who said words to the effect of, "Just do it ... and you will find the answers to the questions you didn't know you were asking ... "
Thomas
Dondi
Well-Known Member
Sunny C said:
It is not a simple as it appears.
There is a decent explanation of the geneology question found here. It deals specifically with the problem of Matthew's geneology in the issue of Jechonias, to whom there is a curse from which no ruler of Israel will emerge from that line, as indicated in Jeremiah 22:28-30. The article sums up as follows:
ETA: I think the article in the quote above makes the mistake of saying that Jesus' adoptive father was Jacob, when it should read Joseph. But that is of little consequence.
Where do those non-practicing and former Catholics fit into that mix I wonder? In my world (which is the world of don't know it yet) I run into more of those that were raised and schooled Catholic, more of the used to be Catholics, than the currently practicing variety...(I can say this even though half my son's Boy Scout troop is Catholic and I attend the Catholic scout religioius retreat with tens of hundreds of scouts, mostly Catholic)
To me still the Biblical inconsitencies add the flavor to the stories...similar to She's a brunette...well if it is real and not from a bottle there are a lot of colors in there which make up that brunette...or blond, or redhead...
The problem I have with the inconsitencies is not that they are there...but when folks try to bend them to say they aren't there or try to justify their existence by some convoluted story... I don't believe creation is less then 10,000 years old...but it is written...and I can gain from the story...despite the errors and inconsistencies.
Another priest I knew once said "Catholics are like actors, some are engaged, most are resting ... "
Yes, a problem in the West ... the more comffortable people are, the less religion matters ... it's a biggest and most devastating export we've got ... that's why Pope Benedict speaks continually about the dangers of Relativism. It doesn't get reported because it's too intelligent and too intellectually demanding for his critics.
That, for me, is the difference between scholarship and opinion.
I am obliged to say at this point that Fundamentalist Christianity in the US is currently punching way above its weight, and theologically it's turning back the clock.
The Orthodox churches likewise frown of theological speculation (theology is regarded as the sole province of those in orders) but this is countered by the apprehension of a Mystery beyond all undersdtanding ... Fundamentalism to me seems to ignore reason, and ignore faith, but rely on fear, silence and superstition...
It has ever been axiomatic to Christianity that faith does not invalidate reason, faith must be reasonable, but faith is not obliged to accept the latest cultural whim without putting it to the test.
I think there's a huge debate to be had amongst Americans as to what has triggered this upswell of fundamentalism, and is there any connection to the profound psychological and psychic shock suffered in the reversals of recent history ... from Vietnam through to 9/11 ... but that's not for this thread, and perhaps not for this place ...
... whatever, the whole creation v evolution discussion is a nonsense theologically. It was done and dusted generations ago.
I recall a physicist talking about Stephen Hawking's theories ... one thing he said was that a good theory has a kind of simplicity and beauty of its own, but a positive sign towards a good theory was that it tends to clear up a number of unrelated issues, as well as the problem it addresses directly.
The 'problem' with Hawkings is that it raises more questions than it solves ...
Likewise what attracts me is the solution to the inconsistencies, not the inconsistencies themselves (what can you find there, but confusion?) Too often, in my secular discussions (not necessarily here) it becomes apparent that people don't want the inconsistency solved, they just want it to stand as a 'proof' that Christianity is wrong, and that their woefully ill-informed opinion is right.
Thomas
I understood the before and the after but missed this one...
In this discusson though I think what is quite telling is that in affect the councils are proof of the inconsistencies...you don't get groups like that together if not to iron out issues...if it was all clear the debates wouldn't have been required...not then, not now.
I've gotta find that quote of the Vatican Priest who when inquired about the possibility of extraterrestrial civilizations older than ours responded to the affect.."We aren't saying the garden was on Earth..."
Funny coming from me, I don't see it that way...I see it as a combination of a pendelum swing and a void being filled. Part of the bell curve, filling a need...and supporting the growth of spirituality and theological study...the folks that are in this vein focus on the book to the nth degree, can't be a bad thing. They are creating a basis of knowledge that will be able to be used as a springboard as their scope expands. They are having children...lots of them...and home-schooling them...these will be incredible thinkers in the future...and a new world will open up, as they open up to the world.
G-d is good!
Dor
Bible Thumper
Why is it hard to see.
They diverge one generation back because one lists Joseph father who is Jacob and one calls him the son of Heli who is his father in law.
And actually there are 5 women listed in the geneology and only 1 would have been remotely considered righteous according to the law. Study those women I find it fascinating that the geneology of Jesus includes a pagan, 2 gentiles, and an adultress that they thought were all worth mentioning.